Wow, that says it all and if only they would have taken the initiative to post this 3 months ago, not 3 days before Feb 10 when everyone is freaking out. It is obvious that the CPSC had more authority than they thought all this time and the letter by Rush/Waxman put the pressure on them.

I sincerely doubt it was Waxman et al; they're the ones to blame for this mess more than anyone. Not to say I don't believe pressure wasn't brought to bear.

What I think CPSC has done is run out the clock; special interest groups have to file suit. Until then, some of us are covered to a limited extent. I also think cpsc is a bit annoyed they lost their lawsuit with uspirg over Falvey's retroactive decision of November 17.

I just got a call from Sen. Reed's office to find out what my thoughts were on the press release that went out today. I was a little shocked at the phone call to be honest. They wanted to know if it was going to help my business. In theory yes, except that I have been selling everything off below my cost for the past week. It is helpful if I decide to continue with my children's clothing line. But, I have all but shut it down. Why or why couldn't they have made this decision months ago?

He did ask some great questions however about how allowing XRF testing and testing at the component level would help us. It sounds like they may be pushing for testing at the component level in regards to buttons, snaps, zippers, etc.

So hopefully this will continue to take a turn for the better for all of us!

Emergency stay of deadline denied, but exclusion of "ordinary" children's books post 1985 and dyed or undyed textile products approved. The caveat is that the textile products cannot have any rhinestones or metal or plastic buttons, grommets, zippers, or snaps, or other components other than non-metallic thread or cloth trim. Otherwise they are still subject to the 600 ppm lead limit on Feb 10.

Hi Bente
I hope you don't mind my having trimmed back your post, otherwise they can get long. Well, especially in this case because there have been seven releases since thursday, all bearing discussion. The releases are:

This is a big chunk; the stuff from thursday is kind of a downer but I do plan on summarizing these. I was complaining yesterday that the CPSC's propensity for releasing a flood of documents at the close of business on Friday gums up the works for quite a few people. I rather take my time and go through them well rather than commenting after a brief scan of the material.

In addition to the labeling guidance I've been remiss to publish yet (sorry) last week, the CPSC published guidance (pdf) on lead inaccessibility for children's products. The standard excludes component parts of a children’s product that are not normally accessible to a child meaning reasonably foreseeable use and abuse. It's not much different from the proposed guidelines they published 1/15/09. For review, the guidelines say

Quote:

A component part is not accessible under this subparagraph is such component part is not physically exposed by reason of a sealed covering or casing and does not become physically exposed through reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the product. Reasonably foreseeable use and abuse shall include to, swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children’s activities, and the aging of the product.

If you want to skip to the most salient part btwn the two docs, see pgs 28-32 in the federal register. For our purposes, the cpsc has ruled:

Quote:

a children’s product or component that is encased, enclosed or covered by fabric is inaccessible provided the fabric passes appropriate use and abuse tests and the component or product is greater than 5 centimeters.

The mention of 5 cm is important because leaching is only likely if the child can place the object in their mouths._________________Please don't PM me, use the email button instead.

Good grief, I unlock this forum for half a day and it's already collecting nastiness meaning I have to close it off again. sorry.

Anyway, my new entry on the [url=//fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-another-tracking-label-update/]revision of tracking labels is up[/url]._________________Please don't PM me, use the email button instead.